Don't agree. Parking is not an issue as the ground is literally a five minute walk from the masses of parking available in the town centre. Ditto buses and is frankly next door to the train station. In a way it meets all the criteria of a modern eco friendly.

It could be done and would work IMO however it would involve some purchases maybe compulsery purchases to create access. This is where it falls down for me because I don't believe for a second that WMDC has the will or the bottle to do that. Martins Auto-centre looks an obvious access point and relatively easy to purchase but as I say takes the will.

Reading this thread, I suppose it's proof that Box's inclusion of Balne Lane into the public eye has served it's purpose.

True but reading between the lines there appears to be some truth to idea - so surely it's worth debating, it is after all what forums are for.

I agree that being relatively close to the town centre, the site could make excellent use of public transport, especially Westgate Station but, can you possibly imagine 2/3000 cars, on top of local traffic trying to get in/ out of the area.

Its an absolute non starter and unless your going to knock down half of Peacock Estate, just where are you putting a RL ground with the amenities necessary to service the ground, it's not possible.

As I said, possible community facilities and this would require a decent amount of work but new stadium no way.

Out of interest, what did you have in mind for compulsory purchase and if main access to the site is down Silcoates Street, it would make getting in and our of The AJ Bell look easy ??

Spot on Wrencat







The idea is a total non-starter and is just more smoke and mirrors from our ever-supportive Council of devious, dis-interested half-wits !!!

The area itself is an absolute nightmare for traffic as it is never mind putting a stadium there... Which ever side you look at access there is no good option for me. Also on paper it is not too far from J40 & J41 but again the routes are/would become a nightmare for traffic.

Spot on.

For the umpteenth time the sight is not viable for a myriad of reason but the main one is the access. Obviously pretty much any site in the world could be made possible for anything if you want should you want to spend many millions buying up land and flatterning everything. Not going to happen though is it. Put this one to bed and move on, it’s just wasting everyones time and focus. The only real option left on the table is a Belle Vue revamp because it’s time to accept once and for all Newmarket will never happen either. We just need to somehow squeeze some cash out of Yorkcourt which is the hardest part of all.

I think some of you are missing the point here. This access issue is a red herring and you need to think outside the box to use that awful expression.

It works like this IMO, you don't need easy access for cars to the actual ground just to the city centre. The city centre is your car park, it seems very logical to me.

Why do some people suddenly feel that 3000 cars need to parked right next to the ground? They can't do that at BV and never would be able to yet we all seem to think BV is ok. Ditto NM which is out on a limb for most and is poorly serviced by public transport whilst I suspect there will be nowhere near enough car parking spaces provided near the site. Thornes was not that different to Balne lane in that you wouldn't have been able to park next to the stadium.

The walk from the Northgate area is not that much more of a walk than some of us make to get to BV but a hell of a lot nicer. Also because it's in virtually in the town centre then virtually every bus in WMDC terminates within 15 minutes of the place. For once it actually makes public transport look the best option which has to be a plus these days.

In it's own way it's quite cutting edge and hugely accessible to those who don't drive or can't because they fancy a drink, it is quite honestly the definition of a community stadium. Stadiums like this are the norm in France where car parking is non existent.

Finally I don't get this flooding bit some are talking about, I believe the ability to build storm drains etc has existed for decades maybe longer



It's not ideal but what is. However I don't see the point in getting hung up on the detail when for now it's little more than a rumour.

I smell something here, and it's not just the cap.

I agree Tommy. May be the smell of herrings, red ones at that.
Balne Lane area is not a good area. Why would you want to be next to Peacock, I saw enough of it in my childhood thank you.
If this was serious, one of the many sites still around the city would now be being surveyed. This is just crap from our Labour council leader and cronies

OK Rodders, back in the days of Franchisin, BV was marked down for lack of parking facilities and one thing the area surrounding our current ground does have is plenty of street parking.
Similarly, although the current residents would not be chuffed about it, Thornes is surrounded by street parking AND has reasonable car parking.
Balne Lane fields have zero access and altough visiting fans could try their luck on tThe Peacock Estate and Blackthorn Way etc, there is nowhere near enough parking in the surrounding area.
I know that in your Utopian world of public transport use, there ARE some advantages but, come on.

I made a comparison to The AJ Bell stadium in my previous post, which you dont appear to acknowledge, maybe you've not been there but, you seem to be in denial about the need for parking, which, was totally missing form the "build a stadium regardless of whether Trinity want to play there" scheme. But, even with excellent public transport links and close proximity to the town centre (which is ok walking to the game but, pretty tough going back into town), there would still need to be substantial parking and that assumes that there is actually room for a 10/12,000 capacity stadium.

If there are difficulties getting to and from ANY ground that may be built, the project is doomed to fail and on the subject of parking, what do you think other clubs have or, are they all wrong but, you are right ? I dont think so.

Also, do you think that sponsors, players, coaching staff etc should walk form the centre of town

Or the disabled !!!!

There is an argument that the provision of parking at the AJ Bell is its weak point. You can get parked. You just can't get away, as the roads can't cope.

Warrington and Headingly don't have much parking, and the parking at Saints is probably retail parking in reality. I actually think the problem will be pedestrian access, as the pavements aren't wide and the ground would be completely surrounded by houses; As in, right up to the fences. What do they do: funnel them down a ginnel?

As has been said, it has served its purpose by being raised as a delaying factor, until it is overruled next year.

I don't see how the access issue is a red herring? The piece of land has got housing on 3 sides and a railway embankment on the fourth. The widest access point is opposite the old Balne Lane library down a muck path between 2 houses and probably isn't wide enough to allow a road to be built through it for access for things like the emergency services!

Let's stick to getting those objections in.

What's with the 'Rodders' bit, because someone disagrees with your sainted opinion it automatically makes them part of what you consider the enemy camp - sad.

Where did I say there would be no parking? There is clearly enough room for a stadium and car parking for staff, players, corporate and disabled plus few more IMO. See attached image which is to scale using BV as a footprint.

Perhaps you should do a little research before playing at being a town planner whilst dismissing the views of others.

As I said in my previous post, it's all smoke and mirrors, it will never happen at Balne Lane and Box must be laughing his head off at those who have actually fallen for this.
I'm not having a go at those of you who want to believe this as being a step forward (God knows we need one), but please open your eyes to the continued deceit that is being pedalled by those who seek to frustrate us at every opportunity !!

...sorry Mr Box, but that is just laughable...is that a 30 metre long pitch or a Subbuteo table you've superimposed on there ????

I used to live on Aspen Close (at the top of the image) so am familiar with the site and there is no way that is to scale, and even if it was a viable proposition, that photo clearly proves that there is no viable access to the site other than on foot !!!

Yes but that wouldn't be how it would end up if it actually went ahead would it - seriously would it? As I've clearly stated it would require the purchasing and demolition of some adjacent properties probably through compulsory purchase but it is possible with drive and ambition.

And this is the point I keep trying to make, it's the latter that's the real problem all the rest can be overcome if the will is there but IMO it isn't hence it won't happen.

However just because we don't think it will happen doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand because lets be clear we are running out of time and options and if we start turning our noses up at everything that we don't see as perfect we will also run out of sympathy, which would suit Box just fine.

We need to remain open minded. That said you are right getting the objections in has to be the number one priority for now.

I just thought the same as soon as I looked at it, but I have just done exactly what he has done on google maps and used to the same scale it comes out more or less the same as his... Maybe I was underestimating the size of the plot?

You need to grow up especially with the Box bit you sound pathetic.

OK Mr expert go on Google and do it yourself - just cut and paste one on top of the other from the same scale sat image assuming your bright enough to use Photoshop. See what you get and then come back and tell me GPS is all one big lie

Correct but some people mouth off before checking it out, must be an Aspen close thing.

I love the way some people assume they are experts whilst those who do it for a living aren't and wouldn't have checked it out for themselves - yes Box is everything people say he is but even he isn't that daft.

Land can be very decieving and always looks smaller than it actually is.

Hang on a minute MR Town planner.
You've managed to SQUEEZE in the bare bones footprint of BV onto the patch of land, well done, take a bow, really.
But seriously, there isnt room for a gnat to take a pee, let alone properly service a SL standard RL ground.

BV in its current state isnt exactly blessed with room but, that is tighter than a tight Yorkshireman two days before pat day.
But, well done for trying.
Perhaps on your next graphic, you could illustrate where access would be, not to mention the parking that YOU deem so unnecessary.
Eastmoor Dragons have more space than you are suggesting Trinity need

Yeah lets buy up half the surrounding area, re-route half the roads as the current ones are not suitable AND build the stadium. You are kidding yourself, we can't even get enough money out of them for a tart up of Belle Vue let alone that. It is a stalling tactic and nothing more than that. And the more people try to justify it the more of a success that tactic will be.

Vasty, sorry but it really isn't viable.

I know its not viable mate, was just commenting on the fact I probably underestimated the plot size in the first place. It`s a complete non starter for me, not even worth discussing, yet here we are

Oh give up man you're just plain wrong as the images prove but you've gobbed of now and can't admit your wrong, sad.

I to was doubtful at first but I visited the site and did the checks and it works out. Sorry if reality doesn't suit you but there is clearly more than enough room despite your attempts to deny the obvious. Truth is you can fit at least three 'bare bones footprint of BV' on that site which is more than you can do at BV! Get a grip.

Oh and stop twisting what I said, I never said parking wasn't required I said 3000 places were not required, try reading what people actually post.

I honestly don't get the aggression I'm simply illustrating the facts, frankly I don't care that much where the new stadium is so long as we get one and we survive - I'd have though you'd have felt the same and at least given it some serious thought rather than slagging off the messenger. I was only trying to add to the debate